If
you haven't already done so, please read the
Encinitas section on the Camera Towns page

City of
Encinitas Documents
Encinitas, pop. 60,000, is on the coast 20
miles north of San Diego.

Some of Encinitas' tickets can be ignored. If
your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's
name and address on it, it is what I call a "Fake
Ticket" or "Snitch Ticket." For more details,
see the Fake Ticket section on the Your Ticket page
and Docs Set # 4, below.

Vote No on Sheila Kuehl

Do you live in LA County? Was Zev
Yaroslavsky your County Supervisor? (He
represented the Third District, which includes the
central and western San Fernando Valley, Malibu, Santa
Monica, Venice, Beverly Hills, the City of West
Hollywood, and part of Hollywood.)

Zev "termed out," and in the Nov.
2014 election Sheila Kuehl won the race to succeed him,
by a narrow margin.

Sheila "Kuehl Cams" Kuehl, in 2007

During her career in the California
Legislature, Kuehl made three attempts to pass bills to allow
the use of automated speed enforcement (photo radar) in
California.

As an LA County Supervisor,
she has a seat on the MTA/Metro board and she will be
a vote to continue and expand Metro's huge (101
cameras, so far) red light camera system.
In 2016 she voted to put an additional LA
County-wide sales tax, to go to Metro, on the Nov.
2016 ballot, and it passed. (See Measure M on
the Action/Legis page, for more about that tax.)

[ ] indicates a footnote.[1] Totals are as provided by the City.[2] Annual totals, or annual projections, are
by highwayrobbery.net.[3] Un-used columns are to allow for later
expansion of City's system.[4] Any figures in red type (or, if you are
looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure
when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what
RedFlex calls Total Violations, or all incidents recorded
by the cameras. The figures in black type
are what RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and represent the
sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the
court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with
the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets). Due to time limitations
data may have been posted to the table only for selected
months or locations. If there is sufficient public
interest, the remaining months or locations will be
posted. Full official data has been received and is
available at one of the links given above.[5] Monthly data was requested but has not
yet been received.[6] The camera enforcement is believed to be
on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction
of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left,
right) is not yet available.[7] Includes enforcement of posted "no turn
on red" signs.[8] Ticket counts for these months are about
3% high, as the monthly data received from the City (see
links, above) covered the first of the month to the first
of the next month (inclusive).[9] From the annual
reports required by CVC 21455.5(i).[10]From reports
received from the Court.

Encinitas Docs Set # 2

Mickey Mouse Tickets - Mostly Left Turns

An official
report showed that in 2014, 93% of the City's
tickets were for turns, mostly left turns.

Encinitas Docs Set # 3"Late Time"
Graphs

The City provided bar graphs of Late
Times, etcetera, for all of its cameras.
These graphs track violations recorded, not tickets
issued.
Where there is a large number of long Late Time
violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate
heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane
number.)

Bar graphs are available for more than
fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded
version of Defect # 9.

Encinitas Docs
Set # 4Fake
/ Snitch Tickets

Some of Encinitas' "tickets" can be
ignored! If your ticket does not have the
Superior Court's name and address on it, it is a fake
ticket, what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more
details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your
Ticket page.

Encinitas Docs Set # 5Missing Warning
Signs Discovered July 2008

Encinitas forgot to put up the
required warning signs at a couple of entrances to
town.
The sign in this picture was apparently
delivered to the location where it was to be erected,
but whoever was supposed to put it up, didn't, and it
was left lying in the weeds!

If you tell the judge about the missing signs and the
judge wants to see photos, give the judge a copy of
this page, or provide the link so that he or she can
look at the photos on the courtroom computer.

These pictures were taken on July
25. It is believed that the signs were finally
erected on July 30, or shortly thereafter.

For more details about the
requirement to post warning signs, see Defect # 4 on
the Home page.

The contract signed in 2004
contained, at sec. 6.1, a clause allowing the city to
terminate the contract if it was not cost
neutral. The 2009 amendment removed that
section.

A Second
Amendment in 2011 extended the program seven
years to 2018 without an escape clause permitting
early termination for convenience, and provided for an
annual review of financial feasibility.

In the 2011 amendment the City agreed
to pay $3700 rent per camera per month. (By Dec.
2015 it was $3921 per month, due to cost of living
adjustments.) Many area cities pay around $2000
(see FAQ # 17), and had Encinitas' negotiators
obtained a $2000 price, they would have saved the City
$428,400.
To cover that extra rent, the City will need to
issue an extra 4284 tickets (assuming that the City
receives $100 of revenue from each ticket issued).

Program Closing?

At the June 26, 2013 council meeting, the council
received a staff
report which claimed large reductions in
accidents, received a SaferStreetsLA report
(which examined the claims made in the staff report
and found them to be erroneous), discussed ending the
program, but took no action.

U-T Editorial

On Oct. 10, 2013, several days before the hearing
scheduled for the city council in Poway to consider
their staff's recommendation
to remove the cameras from that City, the
Union-Tribune published an editorial
which recommended:

"Letís eliminate every trace of this bad civic
memory.
And to city leaders in Oceanside, Vista, Encinitas,
Solana Beach and Del Mar ó itís time to do likewise.
The cameras are simply not doing the intended job."

Per invoices
received in 2017, the City still was paying
RedFlex $3921 per camera.

Summer 2018: New 8-Year
Contract Proposed, Eighteen Months Approved

At their June 20, 2018 meeting the city council was
to vote on a staff
report recommending the extension of the
contract for up to eight years.
In June Highwayrobbery.net submitted an email
pointing out that the staff report contained no useful
information about safety.
The council voted to re-route the item to first go to
the Traffic & Public Safety Commission.
On July 23 the Commission reviewed a staff
report which was a near copy of staff's report
from June 2013, and approved it 4 - 0 with three
members absent.

On July 26 Highwayrobbery.net sent the council an email
addressing the claims staff made in the staff report
submitted to the Commission.